• freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    What the fuck is wrong with you? The idea that the USA could possibly engage in appeasement is completely undermined by the fact that THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR WHO IS BEING APPEASED. When China pushes back against the USA they are not doing something wrong, they are doing something against the USA’s interests. When China doesn’t push back against the USA, they are appeasing.

    The entire analysis of “oh everyone is bad and therefore the USA shouldn’t appease them” is completely structureless. It’s all moron vibes.

    • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      You see - fuck the US - but if the US is putting 12 000 km away from their mainland military equipment on what they recognize as China’s territory, it is actually “CCP imperialism” if they react ;)

    • Blake [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Thanks for your reply, before I address it, I have to ask, would you support it if the CCP government launched a military invasion of Taiwan?

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I would need to analyze the situation. The CPC has established it will not do this for any reason except to protect Chinese national security interests. If it turns out that the USA delivers advanced missile “defense” systems and other nuclear capabilities including submarines, air power, and other plaforms and assets, then it will be all but strategically certain that China will be forced to use military action to push the USA off the island and out of the surrounding waters.

        Given the analysis of the Ukraine conflict, it’s possible that China may need to include other considerations that I am not fully up to speed on about American capabilities and American proxy war strategies.

        In short, yes, I trust the CPC to only use military force when all other options for defense against the USA have been exhausted. This has been their policy and doctrine for a while and there are no indications of it changing anytime soon.

        • Blake [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Honestly, I don’t think we really disagree all that much in broad terms. We both hate US imperialism. I just don’t see the CCP as an omni-benevolent state which can do no wrong. Until the world is ready to fully transition away from capitalism, greed and totalitarianism, it is best to limit the power and influence of nation states. And that includes states which claim to be transitioning towards communism. Checks and balances against supremacy prevents anti-revolutionary elements from seizing control of the state and turning its power against the people. Let’s just agree to disagree, move on with our lives, and spend our energy arguing with people who still support capitalism instead.

          • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            33
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            We do disagree, a lot. For example you think I believe that China is omnibenevolent. I don’t.

            Another example, you think it’s possible to limit the power and influence of nationstates without simultaneously expanding the power and influence of nationstates. Exactly how do you think this is possible? Who, exactly, is going to limit the power and influence of China? After that power and influence is limited, what do you think will happen to the power and influence of others.

            What you don’t seem to understand is that China is STILL going through the process of limiting the power and influence of the North Atlantic in China’s own physical location. The USA however, is busy limiting the power and influence of other nations in those nations’ physical locations. Pushing back against the North Atlantic is literally how you achieve the goal you say you want.

            The idea of having checks and balances in an international world order that has spent the last 600 years dominating 80% of the world’s population with abject brutality and genocide required the expansion of power and influence of formerly oppressed states. Like it or not, you can’t just reduce the USA’s influence with vibes while the USA reduces China’s influence with nukes.

            • Blake [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              If the United States’s Union split in half tomorrow, then the power of the United States would be diminished. This would simultaneously strengthen every other nation state in comparison. So by limiting the power of the CCP, we reduce their ability to cause harm. It’s not a zero sum game between the US and China or even NATO and China. There are plenty of other people involved. This isn’t a video game. We are talking about people’s lives.

              And yes, I also oppose NATO.

              Anyways, I’m done with you. I have tried to build consensus and establish equal ground but you just refuse to admit that you made assumptions about me that were wrong. I don’t want to spend any more time talking to someone who won’t respect what I write enough to actually read it.

              • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                33
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                LOL, you tried to establish common ground by assuming shit about me and when I explain my position you take offense. You can’t imagine that reducing Chinese power inherently increases North Atlantic power despite not being a zero sum game. You live in a fantasy world.

            • Blake [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              My Chinese ex would refer to it as CCP, so I’ll stick with that, since I trust him on this more than internet randoms. Actually, he’d usually just refer to it as “the party”, or occasionally “zhonggong”, but that would be a bit confusing, so CCP it is.

                • Blake [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  My point is that despite the party using CPC officially, even Chinese people will use CCP or “the party” when communicating outside of China, and inside China they will call it zhonggong, or the full name, which I will not embarrass myself by attempting to reproduce. Like I said, I know more about this shit than you do, so give it a fucking rest. It doesn’t matter whether I call it CPC or CCP as long as my communication is clear, and everyone knew exactly what I was referringn to.

                  • CascadeOfLight [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    26
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Frankly, I think you are a liar and don’t care what you have to say. “The Communist Party of China” is the official English-language title, and is in the format of the majority of communist parties worldwide.

                    Calling it the CCP is a transparent and pathetic attempt to demonstrate information control, to force your enemy to be referred to by the name you assign them. It is a method of racist dehumanization and a way for liberals to affirm to each other that they are not committing wrongthink by using the name officially sanctioned by their masters.